IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v47y2003i1p75-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What if Everyone Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Citrin
  • Eric Schickler
  • John Sides

Abstract

The conventional wisdom among journalists and politicians is that higher turnout would benefit Democrats, although extant scholarly research suggests otherwise. We adopt a new approach to assessing the partisan impact of higher turnout. We use state‐level exit polls and Census data to estimate the partisan preferences of nonvoters in Senate elections and then simulate the outcome of these elections under universal turnout. While nonvoters are generally more Democratic than voters, the dearth of close races means that very few election outcomes would have changed had everyone voted. Other scenarios—full turnout among registered voters, equal turnout rates for whites and African‐Americans, and equal turnout rates across income groups—generate similar results: although Democrats fare better in each scenario, few outcomes would have changed. However, the gap between voters and nonvoters' partisan preference varies considerably across states and across years, suggesting that this “partisan differential” warrants further examination.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack Citrin & Eric Schickler & John Sides, 2003. "What if Everyone Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 75-90, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:1:p:75-90
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-5907.00006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00006
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-5907.00006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sajons, Christoph, 2016. "Information on the ballot, voter satisfaction and election turnout," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 16/05, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    2. Godefroy, Raphael & Henry, Emeric, 2016. "Voter turnout and fiscal policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 389-406.
    3. Lo Prete, Anna & Revelli, Federico, 2014. "Voter Turnout and City Performance," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201435, University of Turin.
    4. Coleman, S., 2010. "Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 5, pages 73-90.
    5. Vincent Mahler, 2006. "Electoral Turnout and Income Redistribution by the State: A Cross-National Analysis of the Developed Democracies," LIS Working papers 455, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    6. Fernanda L L de Leon, 2013. "Adding Ideology to the Equation: New Predictions for Election Results under Compulsory Voting," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 044, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    7. Fernanda L L de Leon & Renata Rizzi, 2014. "Does Forced Voting Result in Political Polarization?," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 064, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    8. LeRoux Kelly & Langer Julie & Plotner Samantha, 2023. "Nonprofit Messaging and the 2020 Election: Findings from a Nonpartisan Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 157-183, April.
    9. Alessandro Sforza, 2014. "The Weather Effect: estimating the effect of voter turnout on electoral outcomes in Italy," Working Papers w201405, Banco de Portugal, Economics and Research Department.
    10. Jean-François Godbout, 2013. "Turnout and presidential coattails in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 333-356, October.
    11. Stefan Krasa & Mattias Polborn, 2014. "Policy Divergence and Voter Polarization in a Structural Model of Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 31-76.
    12. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iats1f0hh is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iats1f0hh is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Bernard Tamas & Ron Johnston & Charles Pattie, 2022. "The impact of turnout on partisan bias in U.S. House elections, 1972–2018," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(1), pages 181-192, January.
    15. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7p9a2ge1op95oao5se2oc4ann7 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Godefroy, Raphael & Henry, Emeric, 2016. "Voter turnout and fiscal policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 389-406.
    17. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iats1f0hh is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Fernanda Leite Lopez Leon & Renata Rizzi, 2016. "Does forced voting result in political polarization?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 143-160, January.
    19. Schäfer, Armin, 2011. "Republican liberty and compulsory voting," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/17, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    20. Artés, Joaquín, 2014. "The rain in Spain: Turnout and partisan voting in Spanish elections," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 126-141.
    21. Katharina E. Hofer, 2019. "Estimating preferences for the performing arts from referendum votes," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 43(3), pages 397-419, September.
    22. Kennedy Stewart & Patricia MacIver & Stewart Young, 2008. "Testing and Improving Voters' Political Knowledge," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 34(4), pages 403-418, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:1:p:75-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.